One theory in the Intelligent Design perspective of Biology
suggests “artificial intervention is a universally necessary condition of the
first initiation of life.”
Right off the bat, the term: “artificial intervention”
suggests a non-natural element to the analysis. If Homo sapiens can exist in a
state of nature, then why couldn’t Province have existed or concurrently exist
in nature? Artificial by definition is the antithesis to nature.
Another theory in the Intelligent Design perspective is Complex
Specified Information (CSI), also called specified complexity. This concept was
first noted in 1973 by Leslie Orgel and expanded on by Dr William Dembski. CSI
is based upon statistical probability. It is the idea that a small probability
event and the prediction science will discover the small probability event are
both satisfied, then not only is the event statistically improbable, but
suggests an element of design.
 |
| Royal Flush |
An illustration of this theory would be taking a deck of
52-playing cards, shuffling the deck numerous times and dealing a Royal Flush,
in perfect order from ace to a ten, all of the same suit. The odds of this
happening are: 649,739 to 1. However, this would not satisfy the formula, as
the probability is not small. Dembski, in his theory, defined “small”
probability as: 0.5 x 10-150, or 0.5 times 10 to the exponent
negative 150 power. In order to satisfy the major premise, the Royal Flush
would need to be dealt at least 24 times consecutively and in the correct order
with the cards being the same suit.
For the sake of argument, let’s pretend we are in a casino
in Monte Carlo and are playing Poker. Being dealt one Royal Flush may make for
some envious opponents, but probably would not arise the suspicions of the
complexity of the odds having been designed. Now, after the second, third, or
fourth Royal Flush, the other players or the casino would more than likely
accuse you of cheating.
 |
| Mount Sopis, Pitkin County, Colorado |
During the criminal trial for “fixing” a game of chance the
jury would be instructed that they are burdened with being persuaded beyond
reasonable doubt. Reasonable Doubt is the doubt that prevents one from being
firmly convinced of a defendant's guilt, or the belief that there is a real
possibility that a defendant is not guilty. As a juror, how many Royal Flushes
would be permissible before being convinced that the facts speak for themselves
as to firm belief that the game had been fixed. As a juror in this case, we
would most likely reason on the basis of probability, that the small
probability of the event (24 Royal Flushes in a row), coupled with the
prediction science would discover the facts. The idea is that the results must
have been designed and were not merely the success of chance.
In tort law, this would be a res ipsa loquitur moment, meaning the “thing speaks for itself.”
When an unexplainable torturous conduct occurs, the courts will infer the
nature of the “accident,” even without direct evidence. Often the reasoning
will be based on the likelihood of a small probability event being the result
of some cause, which historically has produced a similar outcome. McDyer v Celtic Football Club (No 2)
2001 SLT 1387.
The predominate theory of how the Universe came into
existence is the Big Bang Theory. The cosmological model suggests at a moment
in time, all of space was contained in a single point. This was the Universe’s
conception, the beginning of what would be known as life. At first the Universe
was dense and hot, then expanded and cooled allowing the formation of subatomic
particles, including protons, neutrons, and electrons. Though simple atomic
nuclei formed within the first three minutes after the Big Bang, thousands of
years passed before the first electrically neutral atoms formed. The majority
of atoms produced by the Big Bang were hydrogen, along with helium and traces
of lithium. Giant clouds of these primordial elements later coalesced through
gravity to form stars and galaxies, and the heavier elements were synthesized
either within stars or during supernovae.
If the Universe was created with the Big Bang, then how
could substance exist before the Universe? Some maths classes teach that
nothing multiplied by nothing is still nothing. Playing the theory out, in a
vacuum, something collides, which forms simple atomic nuclei and starts the
creation of the Universe, which includes the Milky Way Galaxy, Earth’s solar
system and 13 billion years later led to the evolution of flora, fauna, and
humans with enough sophistication to, beyond reasonable doubt, be able to
unequivocally say a “by chance” Big Bang and super complex evolution created
all that we know.
 |
| Red Stone Mtn 1, near Silerton, Colorado |
This case has a few holes. Namely, how did nothingness
create the Universe and if there was something prior to the Universe, where did
that something come from? Secondly, there is a probability issue, like being
dealt 24 Royal Flushes in a row; Dembski’s theorems are based upon an
assumption that we can quantify everything in the Universe. In order to reason
design, Dembski chose the 0.5 x 10-150, or 0.5 times 10 to the
exponent negative 150 power, as his formula. When a probability is this low
that it is a safe bet to invoke corruption of predominate theory by an
intelligent agency?
Design theorists are interested in studying complexity. Complexity is best described as a pattern
that is so improbable that the chances of such a configuration occurring by
sheer happen stance are extremely small. A pattern of 24 Royal Flushes is very
improbable and the complexity of it happening by sheer chance is beyond comprehension.
CSI is merely meant to infer a design, not to create a
religion. Dembski rejects the notion of invisible designers hiding behind every
natural object. His theory is to first establish a design element in complex
specified information.
Is Mount Rushmore a product of natural processes or an
intelligent cause? Most people would
likely agree that this rock formation in Black Hills, South Dakota is the
result of intelligent design. The images of four former American presidents are
quite complex and unique and many would reason it was the direct cause of a
sculptor who intended to sculpt the images we see their today. The presumption
is that you didn’t rely on your religious views to come to the conclusion a
sculptor created Mount Rushmore. (If you did, then I’d like to reserve my
objection here.)
The idea that Science and Province run counter to each other
is a rather baffling theory. To frame the argument in the best light,
Scientists believe nothing unless proven upon facts. As one leading scientist
said recently, “Scientist are reason everything through facts and never through
faith.” Province is the design element or the nature over the creatures of the
earth and the universe. The concept comes from 12th Century French and is
defined as "divine providence, foresight." Province should not be
viewed as artificial or non-natural, but as the designing point within nature
and nothing more.
 |
| Mikly Way Galaxy as seen from Africa |
Faith does not mean blindly believing something against
evidence. By definition, faith is faithfulness to one's duty or obligation;
honesty in belief or purpose. A good faith obligation to repay a debt, perhaps
the one owed to the dealer of the Monte Carlo casino for the 24 Royal Flushes,
does not require religion, a belief in God, or adherence to fairy tale theories.
Bad faith is dishonesty of belief or purpose. For example selling Blackacre to
X, then quite claiming it to Y they next day would be a bad faith conveyance.
Facts are things that are indisputably true. For example,
after buying Blackacre, X drives 100 mph to the county clerk’s office to record
the deed. The fact is that the speed limit was 55 mph. The law imposes sever
sanctions for a blatant disregard for the public safety and authority of the
state. X drove excessively fast on the faith that there would be no police
patrolling that section of the highway. The facts in this case are indisputably
true, yet X used faith. For someone to say they never use faith is a pure
truism.
If only facts are believed by the critics, then why are so
many propositions considered theories, instead of laws of nature? A theory is a
proposed explanation subject to experimentation, but may also be conjure,
contemplation, or view. In the above case, the prosecution’s theory would be
that X exceeded the speed limit and was either reckless or careless in doing
so. X’s theory in his defence might be a broken speedometer, or a medical
emergency, or perhaps invisible fairies telling him to drive faster. The jury
would be the fact finder and they would determine between these theories by
weighing known knowns against reasonable doubt.
If the facts suggest a design element, then wouldn’t it be
bad faith to continue to promulgate an
opposing theory? Wouldn’t that make a
Scientist a holder of a certain faith? These critiques are silly, as it tries
to continue to pit Scientists against the designing point in nature. The two
only became opposing views in the late 1920s. It is intellectually dishonest to
continue pitting two unrelated topics.
Even Thomas Jefferson held the view that the hand of
Province set the world in motion and stepped back allowing evolution of species
and ideas to take their course.
The critique is that statistics and maths may only be
allowed to explain repetitive occurrences and the Big Bang was a unique event with
no defined probability. This critique is flawed in several ways. Firstly, Dembski
discussed that the theorem is an assumption, not an argument. Secondly, CERN
physicists have been able to replicate a version of the “Big Bang.” The work of
talented physicists has debunked the unique element. Lastly, the scientific
method allows for assumptions in modelling. CSI only seeks to suggest a design
element when the theorem is applied in complex specified questions.
Province and nature and science are not at odds, but
co-exist to suggest design element. Nothing here attempts to suggest this
theory is tied to dogma, a particular deity or even that the deity is still in
existence.
